The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Anastasis 23394]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I don't.  

I agree with your assessment that financial crimes are much easier to establish. Paper trails and what not. 

[DDD Dad 14251]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Is "reasonable doubt" the standard for an  indictment by a grand jury?

Not a criminal lawyer but I believe the standard for a grand jury is "prima facie" showing.  I wasn't talking about whether there would be an indictment.  A prosecutor might decline to seek an indictment even if he or she believed he had proof to make a prima facie showing if he or she didn't believe the case could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Edited April 2, 2019 by DDD Dad

[TwiceHorn 31269]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Is "reasonable doubt" the standard for an  indictment by a grand jury?

No, it's sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed, or probable cause. But a prosecutor doesn't want to bring an indictment without sufficient evidence to convict, in most cases.

I think that's a little lower than prima facie, but as a practical matter, the prosecutor would want at least prima facie, which, for the peanut gallery, means enough to meet the burden of proof without considering anything from the defense.

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[RomaVicta 29781]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Mueller investigation spins off a bunch of financial crimes  and not a campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power?  Who could have ever foreseen such a thing?

This sentence confuses me. Are you saying that a foreign power did not attack democracy in a coordinated attack? Are you using coordinated only in reference to the Trump campaign?

I'm not satisfied about any issues at this point, and I don't like having to look through Barr's opaque peep hole at the report. 

The Trump Tower meeting, network of old connections to Russia and Ukraine, unreported agents of same, and all the lying have not been framed in such a way to make me abandon the belief that Trump and/or his people were working with Russians. Nothing about those seeming facts has been altered by the fake summary.

I don't care about predicting what indictments may come or who may be exonerated. I do want to see this investigation taken to its end no matter where it leads. Barr's tactics do not persuade me that he shares that desire. 

[RomaVicta 29781]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not a criminal lawyer but I believe the standard for a grand jury is "prima facie" showing.  I wasn't talking about whether there would be an indictment.  A prosecutor might decline to seek an indictment even if he or she believed he had proof to make a prima facie showing if he or she didn't believe the case could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

I believe you mean prima nocta. 

[Anastasis 23394]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

This sentence confuses me. Are you saying that a foreign power did not attack democracy in a coordinated attack? Are you using coordinated only in reference to the Trump campaign?

Sorry, clunky sentence.  Better read as "campaign conspiracy involving a coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power."

 

[Anastasis 23394]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

 I'm not satisfied about any issues at this point, and I don't like having to look through Barr's opaque peep hole at the report. 

I agree that the full unredacted report and all supporting materials should be released.

Also, if Barr's quoting in the letter that "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." is in fact shown to be a misrepresentation of Mueller's findings, and that in fact the investigation did establish that member of the campaign conspired and coordinated with the Russian government to influence the election, Barr should be the honorary warm up target for the firing squads. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Anastasis

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lawd, yes, preach.  This is a principal reason I have minimal respect for Preet Bharara among many other US Attorneys.

Want to get down to brass tacks, he and his predecessors could have made Trump a felon years ago, in all likelihood, and avoided this mess entirely. Instead they focused their efforts on street crime, which is a state issue to begin with.  And yes, I'm aware he made a few high-profile financial prosecutions.  Not nearly enough.

Whoa, Preet at least started to go hard at them.  Have to start somewhere.  Overall I agree with you, but that’s an odd name to single out.  

[ChiTownDoc 21098]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I agree that the full unredacted report and all supporting materials should be released.

Also, if Barr's quoting in the letter that "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." is in fact shown to be a misrepresentation of Mueller's findings, and that in fact the investigation did establish that member of the campaign conspired and coordinated with the Russian government to influence the activities, Barr should be the honorary warm up target for the firing squads. 

You know, until someone hangs for treason this is all fun and games to the perps.  I wish I were joking.  I don’t mean those unwittingly helping a foreign government, like DJT.  

[TwiceHorn 31269]

I think we have to face the fact that the investigation of Russian interference in cooperation with anyone Trump is donezo.  Any further indictments are going to be very tangentially related to that, if at all.

Same, I think, with obstruction of the investigation of the above.

That's not to say that the report doesn't contain evidence supporting impeachment on either of the above.

I think Mueller concluded the investigation because he didn't want to be accused of mission creep ala Starr, and had to feel that continuing the investigation was unlikely to lead to further indictments or actionable evidence on principal topics of the investigation.

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Whoa, Preet at least started to go hard at them.  Have to start somewhere.  Overall I agree with you, but that’s an odd name to single out.  

He gets worshipped a lot.  I don't think he deserves it.  He's just another SD NY.  A Chuck Rhoades, if you will.

[Dertyberd 394]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Russian government

I think this part is key to the Barr statement. Sure Darpaskev (sp) ins't technically part of the Russian government, but the government is actually the oligarchs/mob.  The hacking was done by the gov't, but the strategy most likely was done by an outside source.  There are many other examples of this.  

Example. The GOP doesn't make the messaging for guns, the NRA takes the lead and the GOP goes along while not having to spend the money/hit pieces etc.  Kind of like the Swift Boat stuff, tea party astroturf.  The difference in all of those orgs in the US is that they know how to affectively coordinate without technically saying "I'm running this message and targeting this voting block."  It's how 501c4's operate.  Coordination and cooperation without technically doing so.  It's hard as fuck to ever prove without direct emails even though everyone knows there are backroom conversations.  

It makes the case very hard for federal prosecutors and why guys like Stone/Manfort and contacts/"Russian Lawyers" etc are necessary to pull it off without getting caught.  The burden of proof is so high, it's almost impossible to convict, even though all the evidence is out in the open.  It's not that hard to see it, unless you don't want to believe that shit doesn't go on everyday in this country already.  

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.

The most direct path to date to Trump campaign conspiracy is through Roger Stone, and we may never get there based on charges.  Stone's indictment is linked by case number to the 12 indicted Russians, and the text of it details that comms occurred between Trump campaign and Roger Stone around awareness/use of stolen emails and Wikileaks.  Even without a Trump conspiracy charge wrt RU govt, that spells "collusion" to me by a still functional degree of separation.  It's not my job to convince others to see it that way.

I can accept that Mueller may not have enough to charge Trump/Trump campaign with criminal conspiracy with RU govt proper on the election attack, however the full Mueller report stands to present a larger narrative that demonstrates how close they walked up to that line or not in a way the public can understand.  Even without specific criminal charges, there is a massive cloud of smoke and lies that warrants a detailed explanation.  It's not hard to imagine that many Americans could shift to seeing the "collusion" with a reading of the Mueller report (or absolve their minds of it).  

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

If they didn't criminally conspire, they were fucking idiots getting played by Russia. 

How else do you explain all the Russians and lying about Russians?

[Dertyberd 394]

This time it wasn't a US org pulling this shit off, it was a foreign adversary and that shit is scary.  Our easily already corruptible system from within is wide open for, as Mulvaney told us the other day, not so ethical people to do whatever they please.  All it takes is an extra layer of deniability and you're golden.  

[Foosters 17730]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, it's sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed, or probable cause. But a prosecutor doesn't want to bring an indictment without sufficient evidence to convict, in most cases.

I think that's a little lower than prima facie, but as a practical matter, the prosecutor would want at least prima facie, which, for the peanut gallery, means enough to meet the burden of proof without considering anything from the defense.

Maybe in the world of white collar crime. Certainly not the case with local DAs

[retread 2951]

It's like Brennan (or whoever it was) said at the Congressional hearing 2 years ago. Most people aren't aware that they're getting led down the primrose path by the Russians. 

[Captainant 27447]

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.

  

 

I mean, barr did say there was evidence on #bothsides of the issue. I thought you'd jizz reading that shit

[Anastasis 23394]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I mean, barr did say there was evidence on #bothsides of the issue. I thought you'd jizz reading that shit

Technically, he said that in reference to the potential obstruction instances.  If you use the hashtag, use it right, or it loses its power.  

[NWBuck 8547]

45 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I believe you mean prima nocta. 

Yup. Someone's getting fucked.

[Homercles 10205]

 

 

Honestly this thread, in the absence of consistent and real news, is just a circlejerk wherein the Trumpers meme-brigade...

...muh Russia! but muh pee tape!

You forgot, but muh obstruction, but muh racism, but muh incompetence, but muh corruption, but muh lies....

 

And right away the muh brigade comes on schedule

[triplehorn 2664]

On the financial crimes (conspiracy) side of the equation, Mueller and associated offices have several direct lines for evidence that we know of: Rick Gates who ran the inauguration committee and filled in for Manafort's departure during campaign  (now Mueller state's witness), Michael Cohen -Trump Org insider/Trump personal atty and RNC deputy finance chair (already had a ton before the raid), Trump Org CFO Weisselberg (granted immunity), Elliot Broidy also was RNC deputy finance chair (likely cooperating).

^^^ Of that list of nailed down or cooperating individuals, note the overlapping roles of all those money men that directly link foreign money laundering/Trump personal business/Trump Org/Trump campaign finance/Inauguration fund/RNC national finance.  And from those individuals, Mueller/SDNY et al likely have it dissected from within. 

That's the "ongoing investigations" part, and yes it stands to buttress public understanding of "collusion" that, along with accepting (and rewarding) Russian attack assistance, forms a much bigger picture of a political system today facing massive foreign compromise.

Edited April 2, 2019 by triplehorn

[DDD Dad 14251]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If they didn't criminally conspire, they were fucking idiots getting played by Russia. 

How else do you explain all the Russians and lying about Russians?

How can you say this?  I mean, the administration has proved itself to be the most competent of any in recent memory.  

[TwiceHorn 31269]

24 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Maybe in the world of white collar crime. Certainly not the case with local DAs

No doubt.  Probably because they know with many defendants (read poor or brown ones), an indictment is as good as a conviction

[deech 2251]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

The beginning of the end for me was when Pat Robertson beat GHW Bush in the Iowa caucuses and I started to see what the Republican Party was becoming. Then came Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan. By 1996, I was done with them forever.

That moment for me was McCain v. Bush in South Carolina.  

[bolverk 29399]

9 minutes ago, deech said:

That moment for me was McCain v. Bush in South Carolina.  

That was a good "come home to Jesus" moment.

Turd Blossom. Have I ever mentioned I had a Southwest flight with him once?

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.

  

 

You were talking about a coordinated attack on our democracy by a foreign power but now refer to trump campaign conspired with Russian government.

This is the same political theatre game Barr is playing with the media/public with his publicly released letters.

One requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and is limited to “Russian government.” Are cutouts considered “Russian government btw?”

Do you feel that there was not a coordinated attack on our democracy by a foreign power? Does the DNC hacking and Russian troll farm fit there? Flynn’s discussions on sanctions with Russians and his previous financial gains from them fit? Discussions on trading dirt on Hillary for sanction relief fit at trump tower?

A crime does not need to have occurred for a foreign actor to influence US policy. 

We shouldn’t want foreign influence over our policy whether criminal or not. Ideally Mueller’s report evaluated this, and this is exactly what Barr would be inclined to redact.

[Anastasis 23394]

22 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You were talking about a coordinated attack on our democracy by a foreign power but now refer to trump campaign conspired with Russian government.

If we are going to parse, I mentioned a "campaign conspiracy and coordinated attack on democracy with a foreign power". I was referring to Trump campaign coordination with Russia.  That's already been further clarified up thread. 

 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Would be curious to hear @TwiceHorn's thoughts on this guy's breakdown:

 

[TwiceHorn 31269]

I don't really want to parse the Barr letter.  I just generally don't like that kind of word play.

Words mean something, when they're in laws and opinions, yes.  Letters like that are like coachspeak, beyond what they say about the law or compliance with it.  And it very well could be, as many contend, pure political spin and I'm even less inclined to parse that than the average poster on the thread. 

I listened to 2 minutes of that and his initial premise extrapolates so far out that it's just ludicrous to me.  There is a counterintellgence aspect to the Mueller investigation, but to call it a separate area of inquiry and then ask why he didn't talk about it is just so far out there I just can't.

Sorry.

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30088]

Re-reading Rule 6, I don't think grand jury material can be released without a court order.  Period.  To do so would subject yourself to contempt from the court where the grand jury sits, at minimum.  There's probably a crime in it somewhere too.
But, it doesn't require a normal lawsuit to get that order.  It seems to provide its own procedure that might not require the ordinary standing that Congress has trouble having.

I think Twice is correct. But Barr’s refusal to agree to ask the judge to release grand jury testimony has me concerned. If there are in-going investigations which spring from Mueller that might indict Trump or prove obstruction, that is either reason not to declare Trump vindicated, or reason to say they are separate and release the Mueller grand jury info as a stand alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TwiceHorn 31269]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I think Twice is correct. But Barr’s refusal to agree to ask the judge to release grand jury testimony has me concerned. If there are in-going investigations which spring from Mueller that might indict Trump or prove obstruction, that is either reason not to declare Trump vindicated, or reason to say they are separate and release the Mueller grand jury info as a stand alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has he refused?  Perhaps tacitly.  But I think all of this moves forward from the redacted report, so once we see that, everything comes into sharper focus.

I think our first window on where Barr really stands on this is going to be the government's response to the Reporters' petition, referenced above..

Edited April 2, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30088]

So y'all still think that Mueller establishing in his report that the Trump campaign coordinated and conspired with the Russian government is still in play? Unless Barr completely misrepresented Mueller's findings, that ship has sailed.
  
 

True. But the extent to which Russia tried and Trump did not expressly rebuff or report to authorities is still interesting and relevant. To me anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

True. But the extent to which Russia tried and Trump did not expressly rebuff or report to authorities is still interesting and relevant. To me anyway. 

Especially the not reporting part imo.

Quote

WASHINGTON — In the weeks after he became the Republican nominee on July 19, 2016, Donald Trump was warned that foreign adversaries, including Russia, would probably try to spy on and infiltrate his campaign, according to multiple government officials familiar with the matter.

The warning came in the form of a high-level counterintelligence briefing by senior FBI officials, the officials said. A similar briefing was given to Hillary Clinton, they added. They said the briefings, which are commonly provided to presidential nominees, were designed to educate the candidates and their top aides about potential threats from foreign spies.

The candidates were urged to alert the FBI about any suspicious overtures to their campaigns, the officials said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-warned-trump-2016-russians-would-try-infiltrate-his-campaign-n830596

Edited April 2, 2019 by retread

[Gatorubet 30088]

Has he refused?  Perhaps tacitly.  But I think all of this moves forward from the redacted report, so once we see that, everything comes into sharper focus.
I think our first window on where Barr really stands on this is going to be the government's response to the Reporters' petition, referenced above..

May be wrong. I thought the dems asked to commit to a Jawarski (sp) request to the judge to release the GJ info and he refused to do so.

Admittedly, a ton of nuance there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gatorubet 30088]

The most direct path to date to Trump campaign conspiracy is through Roger Stone, and we may never get there based on charges.  Stone's indictment is linked by case number to the 12 indicted Russians, and the text of it details that comms occurred between Trump campaign and Roger Stone around awareness/use of stolen emails and Wikileaks.  Even without a Trump conspiracy charge wrt RU govt, that spells "collusion" to me by a still functional degree of separation.  It's not my job to convince others to see it that way.
I can accept that Mueller may not have enough to charge Trump/Trump campaign with criminal conspiracy with RU govt proper on the election attack, however the full Mueller report stands to present a larger narrative that demonstrates how close they walked up to that line or not in a way the public can understand.  Even without specific criminal charges, there is a massive cloud of smoke and lies that warrants a detailed explanation.  It's not hard to imagine that many Americans could shift to seeing the "collusion" with a reading of the Mueller report (or absolve their minds of it).  
 

That is my opinion as well. Sunshine is the greatest disinfectant


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NWBuck 8547]

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

May be wrong. I thought the dems asked to commit to a Jawarski (sp) request to the judge to release the GJ info and he refused to do so.

Must be a Cowboys fan

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Would be curious to hear @TwiceHorn's thoughts on this guy's breakdown:

 

This is a good break down of many issues with Barr’s letter that I’ve seen here and elsewhere. 

It is only 13 minutes long and helps put the letter in perspective. I recommend for anyone who thinks “the Mueller investigation found no evidence of collusion” - seemingly most in the media.

[Anastasis 23394]

9 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

True. But the extent to which Russia tried and Trump did not expressly rebuff or report to authorities is still interesting and relevant. To me anyway.

I said this back on the scat site, but the smart political play was to report the Veselnitskaya (information damaging to clinton related to her dealings with Russia) and Mifsud contacts (hillary emails) and follow-up immediately with a press release. Don't even waste time on the meeting. The political beauty of reporting is that you don't actually have to get the dirt, you create the reality you want without even getting your hands dirty.  

"The Trump campaign can confirm that it continues to cooperate with the FBI regarding an investigation into damaging information related to Hillary Clinton's dealings with foreign nations, and threats to national security related to email communications. We will continue to fully cooperate with the fine men and women of the FBI to Make American Great Again. We will not comment further on this matter as it is an ongoing investigation with significant national security implications. P.S. Lock Her Up." 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Remember when Trump trusted Putin over our intelligence community?  Wasn’t that hilarious? 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

I remember when Hillary’s daughter-in-law was trying to setup a back channel of communication with Tehran

Edited April 2, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I remember when Hillary’s daughter-in-law was trying to setup a back channel of communication with Tehran

Chelsea's gay ?

[Horn Dog 9671]

Which would you prefer:

1.  A president who is corruptable by a foreign government, but who’s corruption would require an elaborate scheme of overcoming that person’s natural loyalty to his country utilizing sophisticated mental manipulation. This president would have to consider all the logical arguments for or against his actions, and although he ends up choosing the wrong path, there is a true rational and intelligent pathway to his decision tree and an actual point at which he decides to betray his government . 

2.  A president who is so clueless and manipulatable that a foreign government doesn’t even have to convince or coordinate with him in any way in order to get what they want?  Kinda  like Forest Gump at a peace rally...no clue what is actually happening but happy to play his part without question...and without any ”collusion”.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

29 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Which would you prefer:

1.  A president who is corruptable by a foreign government, but who’s corruption would require an elaborate scheme of overcoming that person’s natural loyalty to his country utilizing sophisticated mental manipulation. This president would have to consider all the logical arguments for or against his actions, and although he ends up choosing the wrong path, there is a true rational and intelligent pathway to his decision tree and an actual point at which he decides to betray his government . 

2.  A president who is so clueless and manipulatable that a foreign government doesn’t even have to convince or coordinate with him in any way in order to get what they want?  Kinda  like Forest Gump at a peace rally...no clue what is actually happening but happy to play his part without question...and without any ”collusion”.

This is an under appreciated perspective.  Trump not being a witting criminal conspirator arguably makes the situation worse because it means he’s incomprehensibly stupid/incompetent and the President of the United States.

I’ve always argued Trump’s best defense was his ignorance.  Looks like that’s what it’s going to be. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Biff Tannen 45492]

18 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is an under appreciated perspective.  Trump not being a witting criminal conspirator arguably makes the situation worse because it means he’s incomprehensibly stupid/incompetent and the President of the United States.

I’ve always argued Trump’s best defense was his ignorance.  Looks like that’s what it’s going to be. 

Look at his rantings just from today.  He's a got damned imbecile.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Look at his rantings just from today.  He's a got damned imbecile.

He’s like a Super Sized version of Carter Page PhD.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz
PhD

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

 

[Zavala 1384]

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

6 minutes ago, Zavala said:

 

Is Nadler inconsistent now? Congress had the star report and they were debating about what to releases to the public.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The difference is in 1998 Congress was handed over everything immediately including grand jury testimony. 

Nadler wanted Congress to do a better job of protecting the innocent with redactions.

That tweet is misleading propaganda bullshit.